I agree that such a scale is needed in math, but I'm not a fan of this crackpot index. Somehow citing incorrect premises and making vaccuous statements is acceptable (wih the -5 point starting 'credit', there's flexibility for 1- and 2-point mistakes), but the other behaviors aren't. I can think of many noncrackpots who would get negative scores... Erdos frequently offered prize money for proofs and counterexamples, many mention (for various reasons) their schooling, a brief mention of the duration of one's study of the material is not beyond the pale of belief, and so on.

Combined with the fact that Baez's own index rates itself as more of a crackpot than a paper with a dozen logical inconsistencies and half a dozen otherwise false statements... :tongue2: